joe_collector

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I'll just leave it be.

Now, I hate to say it, but that ending paragraph sound like Joe Conzolo is in on the "wheels are in motion" deal. Whenever someone says "be happy with what you have", they're yanking your chain, bigtime. Ian, you need to take a break from the DC collecting, and let things cool down. Step away and let Metro corner the market if they feel the need.

Ah, so the infamous Ian vs. Metro battle heats up once again.

Naturally. They're high-grade Bronze Byrne issues and I've been trying to buy them from Banner since the time of the dinosaurs. I've officially given up on that avenue for my want list.

Wow, you've sold me! Past performance obviously equals future growth, which has been proven in all investment markets, right?

As I've said many times before, the "investment collectible" business does not promote the vast majority of occurences, only the exceedingly rare ones that made gobs of money. There was a great example of this awhile back, where an "investment consortium" went around in 1991, buying up all the "dealer NM" copies of ASM 1-50 or so. Then they sent them to CGC in 2002, got back their CGC 2.0 to 7.0 books, and then took a HUGE bath on their EBay auctions. But no one likes to talk about those poor "investors" and instead concentrate on promoting the 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% that were in the right place at the right time.

That's exactly it, not to mention that to believe the hype of someone who stands to gain financially from your belief, is to toss yourself in with the sheep. Where were all these "investment articles" when books were selling for 1/100th of what they are today? Where were the gurus then? Buying up the cheap books, keeping their mouth shut, and setting up the CGC pyramid. When "investment" and "collectible" get put into the same sentence, rest assured that the boat has long since sailed. Bye Bye!

Yeah, I've read that one and it's really the start of a lifetime exemption for large corporations who have the money to spend on Senators. Many "artists" lost their copyright in the intervening years, and it's highly amusing it only became an issue when the first Mickey Mouse cartoons came up to the chopping block. We tend to forget the real reason for copyright protection. It was designed as an exclusive right for a SET period of time, in EXCHANGE for free use by the people afterwards. It also forces companies to innovate, release new products, and better our way of life, rather than getting fat off of "in perpetuity" copyright exemptions. If that last part never comes about (and it likely won't as long as Disney can buy Senators), then we really have no copyright law as we have all come to know it, and it really serves no purpose.

No, they didn't sell out, but Disney is being their usual selves: 1) Disney is repeatedly strong-arming other Peter Pan licenses who own valid agreements with the hospital, and acting like they own Peter Pan, when they really only have animation rights. 2) Disney had a live-action Peter Pan movie in the works, but tried to get it for free (even though they only have animation rights) and refused to pay the hospital a cent. I guess their PR guys and lawyers told them to back off, and rather than pay those sick kids a dime, they're likely shelving the movie and all related items. 3) Disney tries to market the Peter Pan name like they own a million licenses, and steadfastly refuses to give any proceeds to the hospital. I believe some big-name lawyers jumped in pro bono awhile back, which is why Peter Pan clothing, dolls, etc. aren't on retail shelves anymore. It's pretty sick really, when you think of all the good things the hospital does, the sick kids laying in the beds, and Eisner jet setting around the world, burning money, and looking for any way to screw the hospital out of receiving a cent.

Not in this case, just realistic. If the bill is *supposed* to benefit the artist's family, while it actually benefits corporations holding old, valuable (and extremely inexpensive) licenses, then by definition, it's a sham. Go read up on the dirty deeds that Disney is pulling on that sick kid's hospital that was bequeathed the Peter Pan rights, and then tell me I'm wrong.

Um, this is true. Yeah, but I was referring to the laughable assertion that it was for the benefit of the poor families of the artist, so they could reap the windfall of the original work. Unfortunately, the majority signed over rights to big corporations long ago. If the original copyright lapsed, the author's family would lose the $5K annual stipend (from an agreement signed in the 50's), while a company like Disney would potentially lose billions. Oh yeah, this is definitely a bill for the "little people".

Thanks for the laugh FF, I really needed it today. You really can't be that naive, can you?

I see you bought your Curators from Chuck.

Sure, he's got some nice comics, but I wish he'd shut up with that "With great power comes..." BS.

He already CGC'd his best copy and it came back 9.2, so I'd assume anything better or equivalent would be at CGC HQ.

Good, as Greggy told me awhile back he didn't have anymore HG Byrnes, and that his 9.2 GS Dracula 5 was long gone...

That better not have been just lately...

Thanks banner, and I must say I was pleased with the overall transaction.

I've honestly never seen one of these, and the Valiant completists will probably drive it sky-high!!: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2200164620&category=12589

On that statement... we shall see, oh yes, we shall definitely see....

Joanna, why don't you blow this "superiority complex" you have out your butt?

Cool, and thanks. It must be the Subby 31 that has the Cap story in it. Really cool one, where a mini-scanners-like maniac tries to match brains with Cap, and pays for it!! Just found it: The Hypnotist of Horror

Thanks, now what's the other one? Gotta be a Marvel multi-character book, as there are Cap, Subby and Torch stories inside.

Does that one have the ultra-cool Captain America story about the guy who tried to match minds with him?

Speaking of coverless GA, anyone know what title/number these two issues are: